Smt. Mahdei vs Board Of Revenue And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13562 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1203 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Mahdei
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.8.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. 08591/2019 Computer Case No.T201916530108591, Mahdei Vs. State of U.P. as well as order dated 9.3.2021 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No. REV/614/2020/Mirzapur, Computerized Case No. AL2020165300614, Smt. Mahdai Vs. Gaon Sabha and others, under Section 210 U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to record the name of the petitioner on exchange land of Arazi No. 10 from same area of Arazi no. 3 and map to be corrected accordingly.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and other revenue officials to restrain unauthorized third person to occupied and construct on the Arazi No. 10 situated in Village-Narottampur, Pargana Kasiwar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur."

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed seeking exchange of petitioner's Minjumla plot in question that is, Plot No. 3 with Plot No. 10 inasmuch as PWD road has been constructed over the plot belonging to the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that given the provision of Section 77 of the Code, 2006, no Bhumidhari rights could accrue in respect of certain lands. It is stated that under Section 77, it has been left for the State Government to consider the location, public utility and suitability of the land proposed to be reserved or exchanged.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition.

5. Evident it is from the report of Revenue authority that appears at page 36 of the writ petition that no resolution of the Gaon Sabha has been enclosed with the application filed by the petitioner under Section 101. In the matter relating to exchange, this Court has passed a judgment dated 3.4.2023 in Writ-B No. 1218 of 2021 ( Narendra Kumar and another Vs. The Board of Revenue and others), in which it has been held as follows:-

"18....... Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 101 of the Rules, 2016, an application for exchange of land of Gram Panchasyat is required to be accompanied by certified copies of the khatauni relating to the plots given as well as received in exchange, together with a copy of the resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in favour of such exchange. In the alternative, the application is to be accompanied by the suo moto resolution of the Sub-Divisional Officer approved by the Collector......

6. There is no material on record to demonstrate that any such resolution was made and filed alongwith the application of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, no ground for interference has been made out by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2023

sfa/

(Jayant Banerji, J.)